IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1762 of 2008 (O & M)

Date of decision :-26.02.2026 Sukhiya and others …..Appellants Versus Kala and others …..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- None for the appellants.

Mr. Rahul Noorie, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for respondent No.3-

Insurance Company.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of ₹3,16,700/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), Jhajjar vide Award dated 19.09.2007 passed in MACT Petition No.128 of 2004/2005 dated 19.08.2004/28.11.2005 filed under Sections 166 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

The three claimants are the widow and the parents of deceased Suker Ali, who was stated to be 22 years of age at the time of the accident.

On the last date of hearing i.e. 01.08.2025, noticing that there had been no representation on behalf of the appellants on the previous two dates i.e. 08.07.2025 and 16.07.2025, this Court had directed issuance of actual date of hearing notice to the parties as well as learned counsel for 26.02.2026. Registry was further directed to make efforts through the Sarpanch of the concerned village and the SHO of the concerned area to effect service upon the parties.

As per office report, appellants remain unserved as they are not residing at given address; and learned counsel for the parties have been informed.

Today, when the matter has been taken up, none has appeared on behalf of the appellants. In the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to the appellants would be a futile exercise.

Be that as it may, this Court has perused the record.

The age of the deceased was determined to be 22 years on the basis of Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-24). It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was an expert brick mason (mistri), however, in the absence of any documentary proof regarding income, the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹2,400/- on the basis of the statements available on record.

Since there were three dependents, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses was rightly made. Considering the age of 22 years, multiplier of ‘16’ was applied. The learned Tribunal further awarded a sum of ₹9,500/- under conventional heads including consortium and loss of estate, thereby assessing the total compensation at ₹3,16,700/-.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that the accident had taken place on 27.06.2004 and as per the law prevailing at the relevant time, the compensation awarded was just, fair and reasonable.

Having considered the matter, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier, made proper deduction towards personal expenses and assessed the income in the absence of documentary proof on a reasonable basis keeping in view the period of accident. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the assessment was either arbitrary or contrary to settled principles prevailing at the time.

In the absence of any ground warranting interference for enhancement, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Needless to observe that the liability as determined by the learned Tribunal shall remain unaltered.

February 26, 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA )

JUDGE Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No